Police woman escapes prosecution after killing biker

[Cloggy]

Saw this on visordown:

Police woman escapes prosecution after killing biker

I don't do police bashing, but this article caught my eye

I guess we probably wouldn't have heard of it if it wasn't a cop, and we don't have all the details........

 

[motojoe122]

As I see it, phone on her lap and on speaker...
Unless some new phone came out that opens itself and goes straight to speaker....she used her hands.

 

[7UPyours]

exactly, she had to look at to see who was calling before she decided to pick it up, but since this is a LEO, there is always not enough evidence

 

[SteveH41]

The mobile phone ban while driving in the UK is a joke anyway, I see more now than ever before, some old fat cow in an ancient ford ranger was behind me last night while stuck in traffic, you could see her quite clearly texting, so engrossed was she that the lights changed and everyone f**ked off before she even realised.

Should be a mandatory 8 week ban effective immediately and a fine with 6 points on your license, perhaps then people would think twice.

I do feel strongly about mobile phone use in vehicles as bluetooth equipment is very cheap and easy to set up. I prefer to not answer even though I have integrated bluetooth in my works van, better to be late in this world than early in the next

S.

 

[mikeshungry]

This is ridiculous on a stupid level. First she lied and changed her story about talking on the phone and they still gave her a break? And now an innocent biker is dead because of her carelessness. Last summer a woman t boned the back of my bike barely missing my right leg, almost crushed it. She had full view of me I wasn't speeding my light was on etc. She decided to make a left turn on the road I was on and hit me. She was on the phone, baby in her back seat. No injuries, but I was fuming. Anybody else notice a trend between women and cell phones? Apparently other peoples safety and lives aren't too much of their concern.:disapprove:

 

[Cloggy]

I hadn't realized that the standard punishment for killing someone in this way in the UK is only 3 points and a fine

I saw this on the MCN site

Here's a petition you can sign to get it changed

 

[SteveH41]

I hadn't realized that the standard punishment for killing someone in this way in the UK is only 3 points and a fine

I saw this on the MCN site

Here's a petition you can sign to get it changed

Signed.............

 

[Motogiro]

It seems a lot easier to spot cell phone users when I'm riding my bike. Easier to see them maybe when I'm on the bike?
Here's an interesting read from a DUI defenders web sight. I Googled cell phone-drunk driver because I remember hearing the attention impairment was equal or more.
Here's an excerpt:


Behind all this lobbying, all these harsh punishments and political posturing, is the assumption that drinking is the worst thing you can do while operating a motor vehicle—the thing that most impairs your ability to drive safely.

But is that really true?

What if you learned that, if you’ve ever talked on a cell phone while driving, your level of impairment was equal to that of someone whose blood alcohol level was above the legal limit?

Although talking while driving doesn’t set off the same moral alarms for most people—and nor is there a giant organization, “Mothers Against Talking While Driving,” which wields a great deal of influence in Washington—the science is clear: using a cell phone in the car is equally dangerous as the drunk driving, if not more so.

Consider the following study by psychologists at the University of Utah:

Subjects in the study drove a virtual-reality car four times: once with no distraction; once while talking on a cell phone, holding the phone in their hands; once while using a headset; and once after having had a few drinks—enough to put them over the .08% limit.

Researchers even noticed that some of the subjects were visibly out of control after drinking.

So how did they do?

The researchers found that when the subjects talked on the phone—either holding it in their hands, or using a headset—they showed the same signs of impairment, and to similar degrees, as when they drove drunk.

Here’s what even more surprising.

When drunk, not a single subject rear-ended the pace car in the experiment. However, three of the subjects crashed into the car while talking on the phone.

Drunk driving is, without a doubt, a significant danger. However, we may want to reconsider how we chose to doll out our moral outrage.
Drunk Driving Versus Cell Phones | Law Office of Vaughan de Kirby

 

[Ssky0078]

2 things

1. My niece lives in the state of WA. If she gets caught in the first year of her driving using a cell phone (I believe even a blue tooth) she will not get her license till she's over 18. When talking to her she thought it was a good idea and she will probably be less likely to use it in the future.

2. I think any motorist using a cell phone involved in a fatality should be charged with reckless driving and manslaughter no matter what. If the research points to it being as bad if not worse than driving intoxicated then it should be treated with equal harshness. I wish the conservative redneck retards that run the state of AZ would get on it and at least create a law for it to be illegal to use a cell phone while operating a motor vehicle. My best friend in CT has had that law on the books since 2002 I believe.


Finally, I get really mad when a LEO gets away without the same stiff punishment. In AZ back in November a LEO who was part of an LEO motorcycle club, beat the crap out of this guy in Prescott. No charges were filed by the AG. If any one of my Hell's Angels friends had done that, they would get 1 year for assault and battery plus mandatory 7 years for because being in an MC qualifies an individual for gang member affiliation increased penalty. This ******* LEO got off without anything.

Eventually V is for Vendetta or the Punisher will come to be a reality as the system gets bigger and corrupt then somebody will fight back..

 

[CowtownBiomed]

I predict in the future, phones that auto shut down when they detect you are traveling faster than walking speed, AND detect that you are also in the driving spot inside your vehical.

Becasue we all know, without that, these kinds of accidents will continue to happen...

Yes, humans are that stupid.

Sigh...

 

[BamBam]

This law was recently passed in Pennsylvania....and in my opinion makes it impossible to enforce....read all of the loopholes....

Section 3316 of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code (75 Pa.C.S.A. 3316)

(a) Prohibition.--No driver shall operate a motor vehicle on a highway or trafficway in this Commonwealth while using an interactive wireless communications device to send, read or write a text-based communication while the vehicle is in motion. A person does not send, read or write a text-based communication when the person reads, selects or enters a telephone number or name in an interactive wireless communications device for the purpose of activating or deactivating a voice communication or a telephone call.

So, in other words if you get pulled over for texting just tell the LEO that you were looking for somene's name in your phone and you're off the hook...that doesn't seem right...

(b) (Reserved).

(c) Seizure.--The provisions of this section shall not be construed as authorizing the seizure or forfeiture of an interactive wireless communications device, unless otherwise provided by law.

(d) Penalty.--A person who violates subsection (a) commits a summary offense and shall, upon conviction, be sentenced to pay a fine of $50.

(e) Preemption of local ordinances.--In accordance with section 6101 (relating to applicability and uniformity of title), this section supersedes and preempts all ordinances of any municipality with regard to the use of an interactive wireless communications device by the driver of a motor vehicle.

(f) Definition.--As used in this section, the term “text-based communication” means a text message, instant message, electronic mail or other written communication composed or received on an interactive wireless communications device.



What is an Interactive Communication Device?

“Interactive wireless communications device.” is a wireless telephone, personal digital assistant, smart phone, portable or mobile computer or similar device which can be used for voice communication, texting, e-mailing, browsing the Internet or instant messaging. The term does not include any of the following:

(1) a device being used exclusively as a global positioning or navigation system;

(2) a system or device that is physically or electronically integrated into the vehicle; or

(3) a communications device that is affixed to a mass transit vehicle, bus or school bus.

This law is absolutely ridiculous....

In the case of this accident and LEO i agree with what most people have said, but it's really hard to monday morning quarterback a situation when we weren't there...

 

[Cloggy]

Just to make things worse before 2014 most new cars will be equiped with internet (as if drivers needed more distractions ).

 

[dxh24]

There's alot not right with this story... no charges? really? And i think built in gps's are bad enough , you have people looking DOWN in traffic to fiddle with them, don't get me wrong, when used properly i don't have an issue with them... but internet in the car? Why? That's just asking for trouble :disapprove:

 

[Ssky0078]

Just to make things worse before 2014 most new cars will be equiped with internet (as if drivers needed more distractions ).

Have you not watched all the futuristic movies, Blade Runner, Minority Report, Highlander (2nd or 3rd one, I don't remember), matrix series, etc? We will not be driving the cars of the future, the internet will. Your Google calendar will alert you to move your fat ass from your bed to the shower, then to the closet, then to the breakfast table, then it will warm up your car and drive you to the office, then when it is time to come home your car will drive you home, ala like George Jetson. All brought to you by Google. I honestly hope the Rise of the Machines happens before it gets that lame.

 

[Cloggy]

Police woman resigns

 

[oaks]

I did some searching, curious to see if the driver was cited for related charges, such as failure to yield the right of way or making a false statement, but it would seem not.

But like post #1 mentioned, I'm certain we don't know all the details of this case. At least I feel I don't have enough facts to form an opinion here.


Only these two news articles, that I could find, mentioned the rider was overtaking cars near the intersection, which might have affected his visibility to the driver.

"Mr Bartholomew was overtaking a number of vehicles and Miss Carpenter was emerging from the Uddens Drive junction on the A31 at 7.15am when the collision took place. She said she did not see 54-year-old Mr Bartholomew until the collision. "

Inquest hears that Police Special Constable was taking call in car (From Dorset Echo)


And a few nuggets of information in the reader (and witness) commentary here:

"they both probably didnt see each other until the last second as their view of each other could have been restricted by my van. (As has been published neither I or the other witness , who was waiting behind her saw her on the phone, there was nothing in her actions to suggest that she was not paying proper attention)"

"i can't believe the Highways Agancy hasn't made that juction a no right turn when emerging and a no entry from the right - it's a bad juction."

Special Constable on phone when she collided with biker David Bartholomew (From Bournemouth Echo)



I believe she was turning right, and hit the rider who was approaching from the right. Don't know which lane the rider was in. I'd guess the right lane, from the pics here:

Collette Carpenter: Death crash policewoman escapes prosecution for being on mobile phone... because it was on her lap | Mail Online

Street view of the scene:

Uddens Drive, dorset, United Kingdom - Google Maps


Anyway, sorry for the long, and potentially troll, post. I'm one to overload on information before deciding on something.

 

[Ssky0078]

Looking at how the front end of that car was toast and the bike is on the side, it looks like she plowed straight into the motorcyclist side. The motorcycle's front end looks fine. I don't care what she said about talking on the phone or not, if she supposedly did not have the right away and tagged him in the side, she should be at fault. If anything in the states it would be vehicular manslaughter.

Also reading the law as reference by one of those articles it said it's ok to use a hands free device "in a cradle" I think the presumption is that if she didn't have a cradle, she had to have held the phone in here hands. This excuse of the phone being in her lap, after she even lied and said she wasn't on the phone is rubbish. It's just the usual cover up for the authorities.

 

[dxh24]

Looking at how the front end of that car was toast and the bike is on the side, it looks like she plowed straight into the motorcyclist side. The motorcycle's front end looks fine. I don't care what she said about talking on the phone or not, if she supposedly did not have the right away and tagged him in the side, she should be at fault. If anything in the states it would be vehicular manslaughter.

Also reading the law as reference by one of those articles it said it's ok to use a hands free device "in a cradle" I think the presumption is that if she didn't have a cradle, she had to have held the phone in here hands. This excuse of the phone being in her lap, after she even lied and said she wasn't on the phone is rubbish. It's just the usual cover up for the authorities.

Exactly, even if it was in a "cradle" that doesn't negate the fact that she ran over and killed someone! It's outrageous that she got off the hook of any charges and also was given the option to resign rather than face disciplinary charges...